Misappropriation of Property Delivered by Mistake
The issues to be determined are: (1) whether Choi incurs criminal liability for retaining the excess change mistakenly given by the pork vendor, and (2) whether Chuen incurs liability upon knowingly accepting such money.
Under Section 352 of the Thai Penal Code, a person who, having possession of another’s property, dishonestly misappropriates it for himself or a third person commits the offence of misappropriation. Where the property comes into the offender’s possession by reason of another’s mistake, the penalty shall be mitigated.
In this case, the excess change remained the property of the vendor, having been delivered by mistake. Upon discovering the excess, Choi intentionally retained the money instead of returning it. Her conduct constitutes dishonest misappropriation of property delivered by mistake, thus falling within Section 352, paragraph two.
As for Chuen, she accepted and retained the money with knowledge of its mistaken origin. Such conduct demonstrates concurrence in the dishonest appropriation of another’s property. Accordingly, Chuen is likewise liable for misappropriation.
Conclusion:
Both Choi and Chuen are criminally liable for misappropriation under Section 352 of the Thai Penal Code, with Choi’s case falling specifically under paragraph two due to receipt of property by mistake.